|
Block d4, h4: the complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number.Because the product is unknown at this time, we are unable to provide the complete unique identifier (udi) # and other product specific information.We've sent good faith effort attempts to obtain all missing information.If additional details become available, a supplemental report will be submitted.Block h6: imdrf device code a150101 captures the reportable event of stent failure to expand.Imdrf impact code f2301 captures the additional device required (rescue forceps) to retrieve the stent.Block h11: investigation results: boston scientific corporation could not confirm the reported event of stent failure to expand.The device was not returned; therefore, product analysis could not be performed.However, a media analysis was performed based on a photograph provided by the complainant where it was observed that the device was not fully expanded within the patient anatomy.Stent expansion rates can be negatively impacted by factors such as compression, time, temperature, and humidity.Expansion rates are seen most predominantly in the largest stent sizes, which experience the highest compression conditions while in the catheter delivery system.The larger the stent diameter, the more it is packed into the catheter of the delivery system.This means the stent will be compressed more and is more likely to have an unconstrained opening dimension that is smaller than the manufacturing specification.Without proper evaluation of the device, it is unknown if the reported event was due to the technique used during the procedure, anatomical conditions or related to device malfunction.Device history record review: it was confirmed this device met manufacturing specification prior to distribution and there were no manufacturing deviations which have contributed to the reported event.Device technical analysis: the device was not returned; therefore, product analysis could not be performed.However, a media analysis was performed based on a photograph provided by the complainant where it was observed that the device was not fully expanded within the patient anatomy.Labeling review: a labeling review was performed, and from the information available, there is no evidence that this device was used in a manner inconsistent with the instructions for use (ifu)/product label.Risk review: a risk review was completed and confirmed that the event of "stent failure to expand and additional device required" were defined in the risk documentation.These event types have been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Investigation conclusion: based on the available information, there is not enough evidence to confirm the cause of reported event.Without proper evaluation of the complaint device, cause not established is selected as the investigation conclusion code.
|